The trouble with Boris is that he has too many skeletons in his cupboard and even his own Sister got so sick of him that she left the Tories and joined the Lib/Dems.
For example a tape exists where Boris then a journalist is heard agreeing to give a friend of his (who later turned out to be a fraudster) another journalist's home address so the friend could have him beaten up.
Boris says that he never actually gave him the address in the end and nothing happened to the journalist, but it sounds bad and you can bet the tape will aired again if he's a leadership contender.
He has also had many affairs outside marriage, he has fathered a daughter with one of his mistresses and tried to get a court order against this being made public, the judge dismissed his application calling his behaviour 'reckless'
in his journalistic career he wrote articles insulting Africans, Buddhists, Jews, Scots and people from Liverpool amongst others. All these articles are bound to be re-published if he tries to become PM.
Boris who is actually very intelligent gets away with a lot by playing the lovable buffoon, but that act won't get him anywhere near Downing Street.
What does he have against Buddhists?
The insulting poem at the Shwedegon pagoda in Yangon.
Oh of course. Difficult to keep up with all his insensitivity and ignorance.
The trouble with Boris is that he has too many skeletons in his cupboard and even his own Sister got so sick of him that she left the Tories and joined the Lib/Dems.
For example a tape exists where Boris then a journalist is heard agreeing to give a friend of his (who later turned out to be a fraudster) another journalist's home address so the friend could have him beaten up.
Boris says that he never actually gave him the address in the end and nothing happened to the journalist, but it sounds bad and you can bet the tape will aired again if he's a leadership contender.
He has also had many affairs outside marriage, he has fathered a daughter with one of his mistresses and tried to get a court order against this being made public, the judge dismissed his application calling his behaviour 'reckless'
in his journalistic career he wrote articles insulting Africans, Buddhists, Jews, Scots and people from Liverpool amongst others. All these articles are bound to be re-published if he tries to become PM.
Boris who is actually very intelligent gets away with a lot by playing the lovable buffoon, but that act won't get him anywhere near Downing Street.
Skeletons are not necessarily an obstacle to the top job if you are charismatic, see JFK, Berlusconi, Bill Clinton and Donald Trump
Clinton was clean until after he got elected, we didn't find out about JFK's behaviour until after his death, Trump yes but we don't have open primaries where anyone can turn up and try to win a major party nomination. Berlusconi yeah but Italy is a funny sort of place.
Indeed. The first electorate Boris has to win over is the MPs, who will all have heard the various stories (and probably a few more!) over the years. He didn’t stand last time because he obviously thought he couldn’t win, and there’s very little to suggest that his standing among the MPs has improved since then.
The trouble with Boris is that he has too many skeletons in his cupboard and even his own Sister got so sick of him that she left the Tories and joined the Lib/Dems.
For example a tape exists where Boris then a journalist is heard agreeing to give a friend of his (who later turned out to be a fraudster) another journalist's home address so the friend could have him beaten up.
Boris says that he never actually gave him the address in the end and nothing happened to the journalist, but it sounds bad and you can bet the tape will aired again if he's a leadership contender.
He has also had many affairs outside marriage, he has fathered a daughter with one of his mistresses and tried to get a court order against this being made public, the judge dismissed his application calling his behaviour 'reckless'
in his journalistic career he wrote articles insulting Africans, Buddhists, Jews, Scots and people from Liverpool amongst others. All these articles are bound to be re-published if he tries to become PM.
Boris who is actually very intelligent gets away with a lot by playing the lovable buffoon, but that act won't get him anywhere near Downing Street.
Skeletons are not necessarily an obstacle to the top job if you are charismatic, see JFK, Berlusconi, Bill Clinton and Donald Trump
They are now. There is too much material against Boris and it is CCHQ with its surgical targeting of Corbyn over Labour antisemitism which has put the nail in Bojo's coffin. All of his leadership rivals will have made notes, and all will have sent their SpAds trawling through the archives.
The trouble with Boris is that he has too many skeletons in his cupboard and even his own Sister got so sick of him that she left the Tories and joined the Lib/Dems.
For example a tape exists where Boris then a journalist is heard agreeing to give a friend of his (who later turned out to be a fraudster) another journalist's home address so the friend could have him beaten up.
Boris says that he never actually gave him the address in the end and nothing happened to the journalist, but it sounds bad and you can bet the tape will aired again if he's a leadership contender.
He has also had many affairs outside marriage, he has fathered a daughter with one of his mistresses and tried to get a court order against this being made public, the judge dismissed his application calling his behaviour 'reckless'
in his journalistic career he wrote articles insulting Africans, Buddhists, Jews, Scots and people from Liverpool amongst others. All these articles are bound to be re-published if he tries to become PM.
Boris who is actually very intelligent gets away with a lot by playing the lovable buffoon, but that act won't get him anywhere near Downing Street.
Skeletons are not necessarily an obstacle to the top job if you are charismatic, see JFK, Berlusconi, Bill Clinton and Donald Trump
Clinton was clean until after he got elected, we didn't find out about JFK's behaviour until after his death, Trump yes but we don't have open primaries where anyone can turn up and try to win a major party nomination. Berlusconi yeah but Italy is a funny sort of place.
Indeed. The first electorate Boris has to win over is the MPs, who will all have heard the various stories (and probably a few more!) over the years. He didn’t stand last time because he obviously thought he couldn’t win, and there’s very little to suggest that his standing among the MPs has improved since then.
He really needs to get Mogg and Gove on board team Boris this time I think to get to the final two
The trouble with Boris is that he has too many skeletons in his cupboard and even his own Sister got so sick of him that she left the Tories and joined the Lib/Dems.
For example a tape exists where Boris then a journalist is heard agreeing to give a friend of his (who later turned out to be a fraudster) another journalist's home address so the friend could have him beaten up.
Boris says that he never actually gave him the address in the end and nothing happened to the journalist, but it sounds bad and you can bet the tape will aired again if he's a leadership contender.
He has also had many affairs outside marriage, he has fathered a daughter with one of his mistresses and tried to get a court order against this being made public, the judge dismissed his application calling his behaviour 'reckless'
in his journalistic career he wrote articles insulting Africans, Buddhists, Jews, Scots and people from Liverpool amongst others. All these articles are bound to be re-published if he tries to become PM.
Boris who is actually very intelligent gets away with a lot by playing the lovable buffoon, but that act won't get him anywhere near Downing Street.
Skeletons are not necessarily an obstacle to the top job if you are charismatic, see JFK, Berlusconi, Bill Clinton and Donald Trump
They are now. There is too much material against Boris and it is CCHQ with its surgical targeting of Corbyn over Labour antisemitism which has put the nail in Bojo's coffin. All of his leadership rivals will have made notes, and all will have sent their SpAds trawling through the archives.
Evidence? Show me one recent western election the less charismatic candidate won because the more charismatic candidate had more scandals?
The trouble with Boris is that he has too many skeletons in his cupboard and even his own Sister got so sick of him that she left the Tories and joined the Lib/Dems.
For example a tape exists where Boris then a journalist is heard agreeing to give a friend of his (who later turned out to be a fraudster) another journalist's home address so the friend could have him beaten up.
Boris says that he never actually gave him the address in the end and nothing happened to the journalist, but it sounds bad and you can bet the tape will aired again if he's a leadership contender.
He has also had many affairs outside marriage, he has fathered a daughter with one of his mistresses and tried to get a court order against this being made public, the judge dismissed his application calling his behaviour 'reckless'
in his journalistic career he wrote articles insulting Africans, Buddhists, Jews, Scots and people from Liverpool amongst others. All these articles are bound to be re-published if he tries to become PM.
Boris who is actually very intelligent gets away with a lot by playing the lovable buffoon, but that act won't get him anywhere near Downing Street.
Skeletons are not necessarily an obstacle to the top job if you are charismatic, see JFK, Berlusconi, Bill Clinton and Donald Trump
They are now. There is too much material against Boris and it is CCHQ with its surgical targeting of Corbyn over Labour antisemitism which has put the nail in Bojo's coffin. All of his leadership rivals will have made notes, and all will have sent their SpAds trawling through the archives.
Evidence? Show me one recent western election the less charismatic candidate won because the more charismatic candidate had more scandals?
2016 Conservative Leadership election.
Which is the same election format that will be happening next time too.
The trouble with Boris is that he has too many skeletons in his cupboard and even his own Sister got so sick of him that she left the Tories and joined the Lib/Dems.
For example a tape exists where Boris then a journalist is heard agreeing to give a friend of his (who later turned out to be a fraudster) another journalist's home address so the friend could have him beaten up.
Boris says that he never actually gave him the address in the end and nothing happened to the journalist, but it sounds bad and you can bet the tape will aired again if he's a leadership contender.
He has also had many affairs outside marriage, he has fathered a daughter with one of his mistresses and tried to get a court order against this being made public, the judge dismissed his application calling his behaviour 'reckless'
in his journalistic career he wrote articles insulting Africans, Buddhists, Jews, Scots and people from Liverpool amongst others. All these articles are bound to be re-published if he tries to become PM.
Boris who is actually very intelligent gets away with a lot by playing the lovable buffoon, but that act won't get him anywhere near Downing Street.
Skeletons are not necessarily an obstacle to the top job if you are charismatic, see JFK, Berlusconi, Bill Clinton and Donald Trump
Clinton was clean until after he got elected, we didn't find out about JFK's behaviour until after his death, Trump yes but we don't have open primaries where anyone can turn up and try to win a major party nomination. Berlusconi yeah but Italy is a funny sort of place.
There were plenty of scandals around Clinton even before he was first elected, remember Gennifer Flowers, dodging the draft, smoking pot but not inhaling? Whitewater was already in the media before he was re elected.
The Tory Party lets the membership choose their leader so is not a million miles away from a closed primary in the USA, so even if Boris did not win the MPs vote if he got to the final two and won the membership vote he would become leader.
In the American system you would probably sometimes be penalised for being too clean and boring. Every detail of their candidates lives is thoroughly investigated, Jimmy Carter had an embarrassing right wing hillbilly brother and people knew Nixon was a bit dodgy.
If their primaries were closed and only party approved people could stand in them, some of these would never have become President but on the other hand they would probably have more powerful minor party candidates.
France now 9/2 generally to win the World Cup. Is that value? I'd have thought 9/2 or an 18% chance is probably about right -- first to qualify for the quarter-finals so about the same chance as Spain or Brazil now. Right -- the Irish Derby now.
The trouble with Boris is that he has too many skeletons in his cupboard and even his own Sister got so sick of him that she left the Tories and joined the Lib/Dems.
For example a tape exists where Boris then a journalist is heard agreeing to give a friend of his (who later turned out to be a fraudster) another journalist's home address so the friend could have him beaten up.
Boris says that he never actually gave him the address in the end and nothing happened to the journalist, but it sounds bad and you can bet the tape will aired again if he's a leadership contender.
He has also had many affairs outside marriage, he has fathered a daughter with one of his mistresses and tried to get a court order against this being made public, the judge dismissed his application calling his behaviour 'reckless'
in his journalistic career he wrote articles insulting Africans, Buddhists, Jews, Scots and people from Liverpool amongst others. All these articles are bound to be re-published if he tries to become PM.
Boris who is actually very intelligent gets away with a lot by playing the lovable buffoon, but that act won't get him anywhere near Downing Street.
Skeletons are not necessarily an obstacle to the top job if you are charismatic, see JFK, Berlusconi, Bill Clinton and Donald Trump
They are now. There is too much material against Boris and it is CCHQ with its surgical targeting of Corbyn over Labour antisemitism which has put the nail in Bojo's coffin. All of his leadership rivals will have made notes, and all will have sent their SpAds trawling through the archives.
Evidence? Show me one recent western election the less charismatic candidate won because the more charismatic candidate had more scandals?
2016 Conservative Leadership election.
Which is the same election format that will be happening next time too.
That did not go to the membership, so we will never know if Leadsom would have won, though Leadsom has nowhere near the charisma of Boris anyway so is not an exact comparison.
As I said if Gove decides to back Boris in return for Chancellor and a big say in policy a la Brown and Blair, Boris could still get it because all the polling evidence is Gove is unelectable and polls worse with the public than Boris does
Why would anyone complain about one of the finest songs ever being earwormed into his head? Never mind the chorus, the tune from the verse was nicked for TLC’s Unpretty.
The trouble with Boris is that he has too many skeletons in his cupboard and even his own Sister got so sick of him that she left the Tories and joined the Lib/Dems.
For example a tape exists where Boris then a journalist is heard agreeing to give a friend of his (who later turned out to be a fraudster) another journalist's home address so the friend could have him beaten up.
Boris says that he never actually gave him the address in the end and nothing happened to the journalist, but it sounds bad and you can bet the tape will aired again if he's a leadership contender.
He has also had many affairs outside marriage, he has fathered a daughter with one of his mistresses and tried to get a court order against this being made public, the judge dismissed his application calling his behaviour 'reckless'
in his journalistic career he wrote articles insulting Africans, Buddhists, Jews, Scots and people from Liverpool amongst others. All these articles are bound to be re-published if he tries to become PM.
Boris who is actually very intelligent gets away with a lot by playing the lovable buffoon, but that act won't get him anywhere near Downing Street.
Skeletons are not necessarily an obstacle to the top job if you are charismatic, see JFK, Berlusconi, Bill Clinton and Donald Trump
Clinton was clean until after he got elected, we didn't find out about JFK's behaviour until after his death, Trump yes but we don't have open primaries where anyone can turn up and try to win a major party nomination. Berlusconi yeah but Italy is a funny sort of place.
There were plenty of scandals around Clinton even before he was first elected, remember Gennifer Flowers, dodging the draft, smecome leader.
In the American system you would probably sometimes be penalised for being too clean and boring. Every detail of their candidates lives is thoroughly investigated, Jimmy Carter had an embarrassing right wing hillbilly brother and people knew Nixon was a bit dodgy.
If their primaries were closed and only party approved people could stand in them, some of these would never have become President but on the other hand they would probably have more powerful minor party candidates.
There is a difference between closed primaries, which are open only to a party's registered voters and which Trump won plenty of like Florida and Pennsylvania and only allowing party approved candidates to stand which is not the case in US presidential primaries, anyone with enough money and support can run.
Very interesting article. I never realised how badly the 1966 WC was viewed across the world. Might help explain why we've never been given another one.
Mr. Sandpit, Raikkonen's 3 for a podium. Might be worth considering, though I'm still waiting for the other markets to appear. Bit disappointing there's still only 11 up.
Very interesting article. I never realised how badly the 1966 WC was viewed across the world. Might help explain why we've never been given another one.
I think those allegations could be made about a number of World Cups pre-1990. At least we didn't try to frame Pele for nicking stuff.
@Mike When you say 'disappointing punters' do you mean you? I don't think there's anything to answer to if you under-perform your admirers' wishes for you. Anyone that's backed Boris is sort-of-by-definition an admirer.
FWIW I think he'd be a great PM, but were he to follow Mrs May then there's an increasing catalogue to live up to. (Lord knows how she can be rubbish and awesome at the same time)
He did the London Mayor gig well. Sadiq Khan is pretty capable, but he's not quite living up to his predecessor, despite (quite wisely) having mostly switched to full on administrator than very much of a political nature.
Re the US, I think this is a "be careful what you wish for" moment for the Republicans. If they get Doe v Wade overturned, then abortion becomes a state by state issue. Democrats who historically haven't turned out for these races may then be the angry ones.
That clip shows two things well: *) Just how fast these cars are going for the car behind to catch up that quickly. *) The workload the drivers have to cope with.
It appears to be a bit silly by Vettel, and could have caused a fairly spectacular crash. But I can't see it as being in any way intentional - I guess he just lost situational awareness for a few seconds.
Very interesting article. I never realised how badly the 1966 WC was viewed across the world. Might help explain why we've never been given another one.
Differing times , I guess . Hard to understand with all the great grounds in England , why they are not in contention again.
That clip shows two things well: *) Just how fast these cars are going for the car behind to catch up that quickly. *) The workload the drivers have to cope with.
It appears to be a bit silly by Vettel, and could have caused a fairly spectacular crash. But I can't see it as being in any way intentional - I guess he just lost situational awareness for a few seconds.
Unlike this a year ago, where Vettel had full situational awareness... ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOI2It_W3No
I still find it very difficult to see how Vettel didn’t get a black flag waved at him for that, and a race ban. Such penalties are quite normal in other motorsport events for putting hot-headed drivers back in their box.
Today wasn’t intentional, just as you say a loss of situational awareness after he completed his lap. Still no excuse though, he has an engineer in his ear who should have told him to keep right at Turn 1 exit.
Very interesting article. I never realised how badly the 1966 WC was viewed across the world. Might help explain why we've never been given another one.
Differing times , I guess . Hard to understand with all the great grounds in England , why they are not in contention again.
I’ve a bet with a friend that England will host the 2022 WC. FIFA know that we could host it at almost no notice if and when Qatar mess up.
Mr. Jessop, perhaps more his engineer's fault for not giving him a heads up.
Mr. Sandpit, a 2022 venue market would be good.
Also, I suspect one reason Vettel didn't get black flagged was the stupid precedent set a few years earlier in Belgian practice when Maldonado swiped Hamilton's car at medium speed and got a slap on the wrist. It was far worse (albeit in practice rather than racing) than Vettel's offence, and should've got the Venezuelan a black flag.
The CS really do seem to want to avoid having to implement MaxFac. This, more than anything, should be evidence that MaxFac is the right choice for British people and business.
The CS really do seem to want to avoid having to implement MaxFac. This, more than anything, should be evidence that MaxFac is the right choice for British people and business.
Very interesting article. I never realised how badly the 1966 WC was viewed across the world. Might help explain why we've never been given another one.
Differing times , I guess . Hard to understand with all the great grounds in England , why they are not in contention again.
I’ve a bet with a friend that England will host the 2022 WC. FIFA know that we could host it at almost no notice if and when Qatar mess up.
What and let all those foreign people in without undergoing proper immigration checks, without work permits?
Mr. Jessop, perhaps more his engineer's fault for not giving him a heads up.
Mr. Sandpit, a 2022 venue market would be good.
Also, I suspect one reason Vettel didn't get black flagged was the stupid precedent set a few years earlier in Belgian practice when Maldonado swiped Hamilton's car at medium speed and got a slap on the wrist. It was far worse (albeit in practice rather than racing) than Vettel's offence, and should've got the Venezuelan a black flag.
Crashtor should have got a ban, but it’s easy to argue that Vettel’s offence was more serious as it was both during the race and behind the safety car. It’s been a long time since an F1 race featured a black flag, I remember Mansell getting one for pit lane reversing in about ‘91. He failed to stop as instructed and crashed into Senna who was overtaking him.
From purely a logistics and infrastructure point of view, the countries that could host the 2022 World Cup at short notice are probably limited to UK, USA, France and Germany. They’d all want it switched to summer though, rather than the winter proposal for Qatar, meaning a decision taken in winter 2021.
Having observed SCOTUS quite closely in my little area for the last 15 years, the role that the justice’s clerks play in selecting and then deciding cases should not be underestimated.
Not to mention that all those in the running for the current nomination have clerked for on or other of the conservative justices.
The Supreme Court has been, almost since its inception, a political institution, and although it is habit for justices to pay lip service to judicial impartiality, the only decisions which are not nakedly political in controversial cases are those where there is not a clear cut majority.
That Trump might be able to cement a conservative majority in the court, potentially for decades, having been elected on a minority of the popular vote, and confirmed by a Republican Senate which represents an even smaller percentage of the electorate, is going to be subject of furious controversy for the foreseeable future.
Only among the losers, buddy. The winners won’t care.
Republicans shouldn’t complain about a polarised political culture then, like with the Sanders incident, for instance.
I don’t believe in telling people what they should or shouldn’t complain about.
I was just observing that it’s usually the losers that complain
And I was merely observing that the losers at this point constitute the majority of the US electorate, buddy.
When they next control Congress and the presidency, there will be consequences.
I don't really follow US politics that closely, but surely the Democrats should have made these old liberal justices stand down in 2015.
Republican Senate wouldn't have confirmed replacements.
The CS really do seem to want to avoid having to implement MaxFac. This, more than anything, should be evidence that MaxFac is the right choice for British people and business.
Having observed SCOTUS quite closely in my little area for the last 15 years, the role that the justice’s clerks play in selecting and then deciding cases should not be underestimated.
Not to mention that all those in the running for the current nomination have clerked for on or other of the conservative justices.
The Supreme Court has been, almost since its inception, a political institution, and although it is habit for justices to pay lip service to judicial impartiality, the only decisions which are not nakedly political in controversial cases are those where there is not a clear cut majority.
That Trump might be able to cement a conservative majority in the court, potentially for decades, having been elected on a minority of the popular vote, and confirmed by a Republican Senate which represents an even smaller percentage of the electorate, is going to be subject of furious controversy for the foreseeable future.
Only among the losers, buddy. The winners won’t care.
Republicans shouldn’t complain about a polarised political culture then, like with the Sanders incident, for instance.
I don’t believe in telling people what they should or shouldn’t complain about.
I was just observing that it’s usually the losers that complain
And I was merely observing that the losers at this point constitute the majority of the US electorate, buddy.
When they next control Congress and the presidency, there will be consequences.
I don't really follow US politics that closely, but surely the Democrats should have made these old liberal justices stand down in 2015.
Republican Senate wouldn't have confirmed replacements.
Yes, they’d have had to have retired before the 2014 elections, when the Democrats held the Senate.
The timing of Supreme Court retirements is one of those things that appears way more important to US politics than it should be. Trump has played a blinder in persuading Anthony Kennedy to stand down now.
Salisbury to host Armed Forces Day after Skripal attack response
Well we know where jezza won't be this time next year.
The Council sought to host it before and lost out, and has been working hard for it for some time (around 1/3 of the army is going to be based in the county in a few years)..but I'm sure someone online will suggest the Skripal thing was staged to win it or some such nonsense.
Having observed SCOTUS quite closely in my little area for the last 15 years, the role that the justice’s clerks play in selecting and then deciding cases should not be underestimated.
Not to mention that all those in the running for the current nomination have clerked for on or other of the conservative justices.
The Supreme Court has been, almost since its inception, a political institution, and although it is habit for justices to pay lip service to judicial impartiality, the only decisions which are not nakedly political in controversial cases are those where there is not a clear cut majority.
That Trump might be able to cement a conservative majority in the court, potentially for decades, having been elected on a minority of the popular vote, and confirmed by a Republican Senate which represents an even smaller percentage of the electorate, is going to be subject of furious controversy for the foreseeable future.
Only among the losers, buddy. The winners won’t care.
Republicans shouldn’t complain about a polarised political culture then, like with the Sanders incident, for instance.
I don’t believe in telling people what they should or shouldn’t complain about.
I was just observing that it’s usually the losers that complain
And I was merely observing that the losers at this point constitute the majority of the US electorate, buddy.
When they next control Congress and the presidency, there will be consequences.
I don't really follow US politics that closely, but surely the Democrats should have made these old liberal justices stand down in 2015.
Republican Senate wouldn't have confirmed replacements.
Yes, they’d have had to have retired before the 2014 elections, when the Democrats held the Senate.
The timing of Supreme Court retirements is one of those things that appears way more important to US politics than it should be. Trump has played a blinder in persuading Anthony Kennedy to stand down now.
The only window to appoint truly left wing Justices was in 2009 - 2011. After that, too many Red State Democratic Senators were vulnerable to the Republicans.
Having observed SCOTUS quite closely in my little area for the last 15 years, the role that the justice’s clerks play in selecting and then deciding cases should not be underestimated.
Not to mention that all those in the running for the current nomination have clerked for on or other of the conservative justices.
The Supreme Court has been, almost since its inception, a political institution, and although it is habit for justices to pay lip service to judicial impartiality, the only decisions which are not nakedly political in controversial cases are those where there is not a clear cut majority.
That Trump might be able to cement a conservative majority in the court, potentially for decades, having been elected on a minority of the popular vote, and confirmed by a Republican Senate which represents an even smaller percentage of the electorate, is going to be subject of furious controversy for the foreseeable future.
Only among the losers, buddy. The winners won’t care.
Republicans shouldn’t complain about a polarised political culture then, like with the Sanders incident, for instance.
I don’t believe in telling people what they should or shouldn’t complain about.
I was just observing that it’s usually the losers that complain
And I was merely observing that the losers at this point constitute the majority of the US electorate, buddy.
When they next control Congress and the presidency, there will be consequences.
I don't really follow US politics that closely, but surely the Democrats should have made these old liberal justices stand down in 2015.
Republican Senate wouldn't have confirmed replacements.
Yes, they’d have had to have retired before the 2014 elections, when the Democrats held the Senate.
The timing of Supreme Court retirements is one of those things that appears way more important to US politics than it should be. Trump has played a blinder in persuading Anthony Kennedy to stand down now.
The only window to appoint truly left wing Justices was in 2009 - 2011. After that, too many Red State Democratic Senators were vulnerable to the Republicans.
Now I’m confused. Between Jan 2013 and Jan 2015 the Senate was 55-45 in favour of Democrats, who surely would have confirmed whoever Obama chose to nominate had there been a vacancy?
Now I’m confused. Between Jan 2013 and Jan 2015 the Senate was 55-45 in favour of Democrats, who surely would have confirmed whoever Obama chose to nominate had there been a vacancy?
The GOP would have filibustered a truly left wing justice and the Democrats weren't willing to use the nuclear option to stop filibusters.
Now I’m confused. Between Jan 2013 and Jan 2015 the Senate was 55-45 in favour of Democrats, who surely would have confirmed whoever Obama chose to nominate had there been a vacancy?
The GOP would have filibustered a truly left wing justice and the Democrats weren't willing to use the nuclear option to stop filibusters.
And Senators like Joe Manchin, or Mary Landrieu, or Heidi Heitkamp would have voted against a truly left wing Justice. They'd have voted through Merrick Garland, but not someone in the mould of Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Sonia Sotomayor.
The CS really do seem to want to avoid having to implement MaxFac. This, more than anything, should be evidence that MaxFac is the right choice for British people and business.
Having observed SCOTUS quite closely in my little area for the last 15 years, the role that the justice’s clerks play in selecting and then deciding cases should not be underestimated.
Not to mention that all those in the running for the current nomination have clerked for on or other of the conservative justices.
The Supreme Court has been, almost since its inception, a political institution, and although it is habit for justices to pay lip service to judicial impartiality, the only decisions which are not nakedly political in controversial cases are those where there is not a clear cut majority.
That Trump might be able to cement a conservative majority in the court, potentially for decades, having been elected on a minority of the popular vote, and confirmed by a Republican Senate which represents an even smaller percentage of the electorate, is going to be subject of furious controversy for the foreseeable future.
Only among the losers, buddy. The winners won’t care.
Republicans shouldn’t complain about a polarised political culture then, like with the Sanders incident, for instance.
I don’t believe in telling people what they should or shouldn’t complain about.
I was just observing that it’s usually the losers that complain
And I was merely observing that the losers at this point constitute the majority of the US electorate, buddy.
When they next control Congress and the presidency, there will be consequences.
I don't really follow US politics that closely, but surely the Democrats should have made these old liberal justices stand down in 2015.
Republican Senate wouldn't have confirmed replacements.
Yes, they’d have had to have retired before the 2014 elections, when the Democrats held the Senate.
The timing of Supreme Court retirements is one of those things that appears way more important to US politics than it should be. Trump has played a blinder in persuading Anthony Kennedy to stand down now.
‘The Democrats’ doesn’t really come in to it given that SC nominations are a matter for the president alone. One of Obama’s (several) faults was that he became rather too high minded about party politics once elected president. It’s notable just how little effort went into federal circuit judges (Trump has appointed at several times the rate); the idea that he would have cooperated with the kind of big money campaign to pack the bench that the Republicans have waged, in the way that Trump has, is fanciful.
The CS really do seem to want to avoid having to implement MaxFac. This, more than anything, should be evidence that MaxFac is the right choice for British people and business.
The CS really do seem to want to avoid having to implement MaxFac. This, more than anything, should be evidence that MaxFac is the right choice for British people and business.
The CS really do seem to want to avoid having to implement MaxFac. This, more than anything, should be evidence that MaxFac is the right choice for British people and business.
Trump just doesn't want to pay for Europe's security, which is fair enough.
If I thought it was that I could do everything that I wanted to without giving a flying fuck about anyone or anything else under some ruse of "me first"...life doesn't work like that..it doesn't make me happier, and it certainly doesn't make others happy....but there again Trump is a fucking self obsessed, narcissistic wanker...
The CS really do seem to want to avoid having to implement MaxFac. This, more than anything, should be evidence that MaxFac is the right choice for British people and business.
Because it will be accompanied by an FTA with the EU.
How is Barnier's attempt to keep NI in the CU/SM compatible with it?
The good news is that we will be able to change our laws. Remember, no Parliament can bind its successor.
MaxFac is a technological solution which has been ruled out categorically on the Irish border.
Keeping NI in the CU/SM is clearly compatible with an open border and those clauses.
Parliament might be able to change the law, but it won't be able to unpick the withdrawal agreement.
1) 'Keeping NI in the CU/SM is clearly compatible with an open border and those clauses.' Incorrect, as it would fall foul of 10 (1) (B), ref. joint report from the negotiators of the EU and the United Kingdom Government on progress during phase 1 of negotiations under Article 50, specificallly point 50 'In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market. '
2) 'Parliament might be able to change the law, but it won't be able to unpick the withdrawal agreement.' Parliament can legislate to change the withdrawal act if necessary.
3) Why are you and the EU obsessed with trying to maintain third power jurisdiction on an integral part of the UK? Maybe get cracking on the FTA instead, or wave goodbye to the 39BN cheque....
The CS really do seem to want to avoid having to implement MaxFac. This, more than anything, should be evidence that MaxFac is the right choice for British people and business.
Because it will be accompanied by an FTA with the EU.
How is Barnier's attempt to keep NI in the CU/SM compatible with it?
The good news is that we will be able to change our laws. Remember, no Parliament can bind its successor.
MaxFac is a technological solution which has been ruled out categorically on the Irish border.
Keeping NI in the CU/SM is clearly compatible with an open border and those clauses.
Parliament might be able to change the law, but it won't be able to unpick the withdrawal agreement.
1) 'Keeping NI in the CU/SM is clearly compatible with an open border and those clauses.' Incorrect, as it would fall foul of 10 (1) (B), ref. joint report from the negotiators of the EU and the United Kingdom Government on progress during phase 1 of negotiations under Article 50, specificallly point 50 'In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market. '
2) 'Parliament might be able to change the law, but it won't be able to unpick the withdrawal agreement.' Parliament can legislate to change the withdrawal act if necessary.
3) Why are you and the EU obsessed with trying to maintain third power jurisdiction on an integral part of the UK? Maybe get cracking on the FTA instead, or wave goodbye to the 39BN cheque....
Keeping Northern Ireland in the CU/SM isn't incompatible with keeping the UK as a whole in the CU/SM. If that's the only way the UK can honour its commitment to Northern Ireland in the joint report, so be it.
The CS really do seem to want to avoid having to implement MaxFac. This, more than anything, should be evidence that MaxFac is the right choice for British people and business.
Because it will be accompanied by an FTA with the EU.
How is Barnier's attempt to keep NI in the CU/SM compatible with it?
The good news is that we will be able to change our laws. Remember, no Parliament can bind its successor.
MaxFac is a technological solution which has been ruled out categorically on the Irish border.
Keeping NI in the CU/SM is clearly compatible with an open border and those clauses.
Parliament might be able to change the law, but it won't be able to unpick the withdrawal agreement.
1) 'Keeping NI in the CU/SM is clearly compatible with an open border and those clauses.' Incorrect, as it would fall foul of 10 (1) (B), ref. joint report from the negotiators of the EU and the United Kingdom Government on progress during phase 1 of negotiations under Article 50, specificallly point 50 'In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market. '
2) 'Parliament might be able to change the law, but it won't be able to unpick the withdrawal agreement.' Parliament can legislate to change the withdrawal act if clauses prevent
3) Why are you and the EU obsessed with trying to maintain third power jurisdiction on an integral part of the UK? Maybe get cracking on the FTA instead, or wave goodbye to the 39BN cheque....
Get cracking on the FTA? but DD seems to prefer politicking at home to the tiresome business of negotiation.
The CS really do seem to want to avoid having to implement MaxFac. This, more than anything, should be evidence that MaxFac is the right choice for British people and business.
Because it will be accompanied by an FTA with the EU.
How is Barnier's attempt to keep NI in the CU/SM compatible with it?
The good news is that we will be able to change our laws. Remember, no Parliament can bind its successor.
MaxFac is a technological solution which has been ruled out categorically on the Irish border.
Keeping NI in the CU/SM is clearly compatible with an open border and those clauses.
Parliament might be able to change the law, but it won't be able to unpick the withdrawal agreement.
1) 'Keeping NI in the CU/SM is clearly compatible with an open border and those clauses.' Incorrect, as it would fall foul of 10 (1) (B), ref. joint report from the negotiators of the EU and the United Kingdom Government on progress during phase 1 of negotiations under Article 50, specificallly point 50 'In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market. '
2) 'Parliament might be able to change the law, but it won't be able to unpick the withdrawal agreement.' Parliament can legislate to change the withdrawal act if clauses prevent
3) Why are you and the EU obsessed with trying to maintain third power jurisdiction on an integral part of the UK? Maybe get cracking on the FTA instead, or wave goodbye to the 39BN cheque....
Get cracking on the FTA? but DD seems to prefer politicking at home to the tiresome business of negotiation.
That article is unfair. Barnier is not doing the negotiating either. The negotiations are done by Oliver Robbins and Sabine Weyland and about 100 odd staff on each side to support them.
The CS really do seem to want to avoid having to implement MaxFac. This, more than anything, should be evidence that MaxFac is the right choice for British people and business.
Because it will be accompanied by an FTA with the EU.
How is Barnier's attempt to keep NI in the CU/SM compatible with it?
The good news is that we will be able to change our laws. Remember, no Parliament can bind its successor.
MaxFac is a technological solution which has been ruled out categorically on the Irish border.
Keeping NI in the CU/SM is clearly compatible with an open border and those clauses.
Parliament might be able to change the law, but it won't be able to unpick the withdrawal agreement.
1) 'Keeping NI in the CU/SM is clearly compatible with an open border and those clauses.' Incorrect, as it would fall foul of 10 (1) (B), ref. joint report from the negotiators of the EU and the United Kingdom Government on progress during phase 1 of negotiations under Article 50, specificallly point 50 'In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market. '
2) 'Parliament might be able to change the law, but it won't be able to unpick the withdrawal agreement.' Parliament can legislate to change the withdrawal act if necessary.
3) Why are you and the EU obsessed with trying to maintain third power jurisdiction on an integral part of the UK? Maybe get cracking on the FTA instead, or wave goodbye to the 39BN cheque....
Keeping Northern Ireland in the CU/SM isn't incompatible with keeping the UK as a whole in the CU/SM. If that's the only way the UK can honour its commitment to Northern Ireland in the joint report, so be it.
Given both the UK Govt and the EU have rejected that, your commitment to it is 'brave'....
The CS really do seem to want to avoid having to implement MaxFac. This, more than anything, should be evidence that MaxFac is the right choice for British people and business.
Because it will be accompanied by an FTA with the EU.
How is Barnier's attempt to keep NI in the CU/SM compatible with it?
The good news is that we will be able to change our laws. Remember, no Parliament can bind its successor.
MaxFac is a technological solution which has been ruled out categorically on the Irish border.
Keeping NI in the CU/SM is clearly compatible with an open border and those clauses.
Parliament might be able to change the law, but it won't be able to unpick the withdrawal agreement.
1) 'Keeping NI in the CU/SM is clearly compatible with an open border and those clauses.' Incorrect, as it would fall foul of 10 (1) (B), ref. joint report from the negotiators of the EU and the United Kingdom Government on progress during phase 1 of negotiations under Article 50, specificallly point 50 'In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market. '
2) 'Parliament might be able to change the law, but it won't be able to unpick the withdrawal agreement.' Parliament can legislate to change the withdrawal act if clauses prevent
3) Why are you and the EU obsessed with trying to maintain third power jurisdiction on an integral part of the UK? Maybe get cracking on the FTA instead, or wave goodbye to the 39BN cheque....
Get cracking on the FTA? but DD seems to prefer politicking at home to the tiresome business of negotiation.
I'm cheering for France because they helped us with the Falklands, plus I want to see Maradona cry.
Plus I still feel guilty about the events at Mers-el-Kébir.
..by helping Argentina by selling them Exocets?
They didn't. At least not once the invasion had happened. France were great help to the British during the Falklands including giving us all the information we needed to neutralise the threat of the Exocets. And that comes from a man who should certainly should know and who called them our greatest ally in the war.
The CS really do seem to want to avoid having to implement MaxFac. This, more than anything, should be evidence that MaxFac is the right choice for British people and business.
Because it will be accompanied by an FTA with the EU.
How is Barnier's attempt to keep NI in the CU/SM compatible with it?
The good news is that we will be able to change our laws. Remember, no Parliament can bind its successor.
MaxFac is a technological solution which has been ruled out categorically on the Irish border.
Keeping NI in the CU/SM is clearly compatible with an open border and those clauses.
Parliament might be able to change the law, but it won't be able to unpick the withdrawal agreement.
1) 'Keeping NI in the CU/SM is clearly compatible with an open border and those clauses.' Incorrect, as it would fall foul of 10 (1) (B), ref. joint report from the negotiators of the EU and the United Kingdom Government on progress during phase 1 of negotiations under Article 50, specificallly point 50 'In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market. '
2) 'Parliament might be able to change the law, but it won't be able to unpick the withdrawal agreement.' Parliament can legislate to change the withdrawal act if necessary.
3) Why are you and the EU obsessed with trying to maintain third power jurisdiction on an integral part of the UK? Maybe get cracking on the FTA instead, or wave goodbye to the 39BN cheque....
Keeping Northern Ireland in the CU/SM isn't incompatible with keeping the UK as a whole in the CU/SM. If that's the only way the UK can honour its commitment to Northern Ireland in the joint report, so be it.
Given both the UK Govt and the EU have rejected that, your commitment to it is 'brave'....
The EU hasn't rejected reversing Brexit, nor an Association Agreement including the full single market and customs union.
The CS really do seem to want to avoid having to implement MaxFac. This, more than anything, should be evidence that MaxFac is the right choice for British people and business.
Because it will be accompanied by an FTA with the EU.
How is Barnier's attempt to keep NI in the CU/SM compatible with it?
The good news is that we will be able to change our laws. Remember, no Parliament can bind its successor.
MaxFac is a technological solution which has been ruled out categorically on the Irish border.
Keeping NI in the CU/SM is clearly compatible with an open border and those clauses.
Parliament might be able to change the law, but it won't be able to unpick the withdrawal agreement.
1) 'Keeping NI in the CU/SM is clearly compatible with an open border and those clauses.' Incorrect, as it would fall foul of 10 (1) (B), ref. joint report from the negotiators of the EU and the United Kingdom Government on progress during phase 1 of negotiations under Article 50, specificallly point 50 'In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market. '
2) 'Parliament might be able to change the law, but it won't be able to unpick the withdrawal agreement.' Parliament can legislate to change the withdrawal act if clauses prevent
3) Why are you and the EU obsessed with trying to maintain third power jurisdiction on an integral part of the UK? Maybe get cracking on the FTA instead, or wave goodbye to the 39BN cheque....
Get cracking on the FTA? but DD seems to prefer politicking at home to the tiresome business of negotiation.
That article is unfair. Barnier is not doing the negotiating either. The negotiations are done by Oliver Robbins and Sabine Weyland and about 100 odd staff on each side to support them.
Not much evidence of progress though, is there?
With time constraints, only an off the peg agreement will be possible. Bespoke has been timed out.
The CS really do seem to want to avoid having to implement MaxFac. This, more than anything, should be evidence that MaxFac is the right choice for British people and business.
Because it will be accompanied by an FTA with the EU.
How is Barnier's attempt to keep NI in the CU/SM compatible with it?
The good news is that we will be able to change our laws. Remember, no Parliament can bind its successor.
MaxFac is a technological solution which has been ruled out categorically on the Irish border.
Keeping NI in the CU/SM is clearly compatible with an open border and those clauses.
Parliament might be able to change the law, but it won't be able to unpick the withdrawal agreement.
1) 'Keeping NI in the CU/SM is clearly compatible with an open border and those clauses.' Incorrect, as it would fall foul of 10 (1) (B), ref. joint report from the negotiators of the EU and the United Kingdom Government on progress during phase 1 of negotiations under Article 50, specificallly point 50 'In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market. '
2) 'Parliament might be able to change the law, but it won't be able to unpick the withdrawal agreement.' Parliament can legislate to change the withdrawal act if necessary.
3) Why are you and the EU obsessed with trying to maintain third power jurisdiction on an integral part of the UK? Maybe get cracking on the FTA instead, or wave goodbye to the 39BN cheque....
Keeping Northern Ireland in the CU/SM isn't incompatible with keeping the UK as a whole in the CU/SM. If that's the only way the UK can honour its commitment to Northern Ireland in the joint report, so be it.
Given both the UK Govt and the EU have rejected that, your commitment to it is 'brave'....
The EU hasn't rejected reversing Brexit, nor an Association Agreement including the full single market and customs union.
The British government will not reverse Brexit.
Nor will they sign an AA on those terms.
So, maybe the Irish should start working with us on that technology again.....?
Comments
Aberdeenshire
Angus
Perthshire
Fife
Lancashire
Nottinghamshire
Cambridgeshire
Herefordshire
West Sussex
Kent
Raspberries remain at six with none from Scotland yet although there were some blackberries from Angus.
No sign of the reported lettuce shortage either with vast amounts of salad vegetables much of it either on special offer or reduced.
I was reading the other day , a differing perspective from other countries , how the 1966 world cup was perceived.
To young to remember .
https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2016/jul/24/1966-world-cup-final-conspiracy-refereeing-50-years
Which is the same election format that will be happening next time too.
If their primaries were closed and only party approved people could stand in them, some of these would never have become President but on the other hand they would probably have more powerful minor party candidates.
As I said if Gove decides to back Boris in return for Chancellor and a big say in policy a la Brown and Blair, Boris could still get it because all the polling evidence is Gove is unelectable and polls worse with the public than Boris does
Best football song ever too:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ISCuYEZYU1Q
The less said about the Simply Red effort the better.
But I doubt its placed anywhere near the top among non English people.
Well we know where jezza won't be this time next year.
Dan Caplen was supporting (These Days,)
Before they started , the speakers were playing , three lions, and world in motion.
The crowd seemed to like it after England's 6-1 win
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/06/30/james-cleverly-could-stand-tory-mayorto-take-sadiq-khan/
When you say 'disappointing punters' do you mean you? I don't think there's anything to answer to if you under-perform your admirers' wishes for you. Anyone that's backed Boris is sort-of-by-definition an admirer.
FWIW I think he'd be a great PM, but were he to follow Mrs May then there's an increasing catalogue to live up to. (Lord knows how she can be rubbish and awesome at the same time)
He did the London Mayor gig well. Sadiq Khan is pretty capable, but he's not quite living up to his predecessor, despite (quite wisely) having mostly switched to full on administrator than very much of a political nature.
Boris can hold his head high.
Yes I would agree with that.
1970 World Cup , most be close to the best in footballing terms.
*) Just how fast these cars are going for the car behind to catch up that quickly.
*) The workload the drivers have to cope with.
It appears to be a bit silly by Vettel, and could have caused a fairly spectacular crash. But I can't see it as being in any way intentional - I guess he just lost situational awareness for a few seconds.
Unlike this a year ago, where Vettel had full situational awareness...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOI2It_W3No
Hard to understand with all the great grounds in England , why they are not in contention again.
Today wasn’t intentional, just as you say a loss of situational awareness after he completed his lap. Still no excuse though, he has an engineer in his ear who should have told him to keep right at Turn 1 exit.
Mr. Sandpit, a 2022 venue market would be good.
Also, I suspect one reason Vettel didn't get black flagged was the stupid precedent set a few years earlier in Belgian practice when Maldonado swiped Hamilton's car at medium speed and got a slap on the wrist. It was far worse (albeit in practice rather than racing) than Vettel's offence, and should've got the Venezuelan a black flag.
The CS really do seem to want to avoid having to implement MaxFac. This, more than anything, should be evidence that MaxFac is the right choice for British people and business.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44668572
From purely a logistics and infrastructure point of view, the countries that could host the 2022 World Cup at short notice are probably limited to UK, USA, France and Germany. They’d all want it switched to summer though, rather than the winter proposal for Qatar, meaning a decision taken in winter 2021.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/section/10/enacted
The timing of Supreme Court retirements is one of those things that appears way more important to US politics than it should be. Trump has played a blinder in persuading Anthony Kennedy to stand down now.
I think they might win tonight mind.
1 nil to Uruguay though, and I doubt 22 men on the pitch by the final whistle.
I wonder how much you import/export. My company does quite a bit.
LOL
One of Obama’s (several) faults was that he became rather too high minded about party politics once elected president. It’s notable just how little effort went into federal circuit judges (Trump has appointed at several times the rate); the idea that he would have cooperated with the kind of big money campaign to pack the bench that the Republicans have waged, in the way that Trump has, is fanciful.
How is Barnier's attempt to keep NI in the CU/SM compatible with it?
The good news is that we will be able to change our laws. Remember, no Parliament can bind its successor.
(You can rest assured my firm works quite a bit overseas. If you want to get into a pissing contest on this, you will lose.)
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1012493364212764675?s=21
See the Times front page today also:
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1012814233262870528?s=21
Keeping NI in the CU/SM is clearly compatible with an open border and those clauses.
Parliament might be able to change the law, but it won't be able to unpick the withdrawal agreement.
JackW...heh comrade....great to see you here..
what the fuck is going on with Ronaldo's personal short adjustments when he takes a free kick..I can only hope that kids do not mimic him
Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's
businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market. '
2) 'Parliament might be able to change the law, but it won't be able to unpick the withdrawal agreement.' Parliament can legislate to change the withdrawal act if necessary.
3) Why are you and the EU obsessed with trying to maintain third power jurisdiction on an integral part of the UK? Maybe get cracking on the FTA instead, or wave goodbye to the 39BN cheque....
https://twitter.com/ftbrussels/status/1012741991589957632?s=19
I think Ronaldo's shorts lift is part of an Iberian male sporting trait in the manner of Nadal's arse crack grab prior to every serve.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17256975
With time constraints, only an off the peg agreement will be possible. Bespoke has been timed out.
Nor will they sign an AA on those terms.
So, maybe the Irish should start working with us on that technology again.....?